Comments on: Sorry, Train Woes Can’t be Fixed

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:18:47 +0000

That’s a false premise, you’re over looking the fact that roads don’t have to make money.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:17:26 +0000

As compared to I-25? There is a lot of north-south traffic in the area RailRunner operates in.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 02:12:37 +0000

Rail Runner isn’t a problem.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 03:02:39 +0000

Paul, that’s just another hypocritcal excuse. I’ve never had to call the fire department, that doesn’t mean that I’m against it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:03:25 +0000

He is a fraud, you don’t even want notice that the street in front of your house doesn’t make money!

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 23:17:52 +0000

70% of the US population resides east of I-35; 20% reside west of the New Mexico/Arizona line; 10% between that line and I-35; over 50% of Americans reside in coastal counties; eight of the ten most densely populated states lie between Washington DC and Boston Mass; of people carriers in that corridor, nearly all must be (heavily) subsidized. For rural NM to subsidize populated NM transportation is senseless – we cannot avail ourselves of the system. Let the people in the Belen/Santa Fe corridor pay 100% of the subsidy, and see how long before the revolution. And extending the rail service to Las Cruces, or even El Paso, to “help”? There’s an empty freeway between . They’ve already widened I-10 between Las Cruces and the NM line, a road that had no consistent level of service below “A”, and no explanation to the Las Cruces MPO why $65 million dollars were spent on that project for the previous governor. Should we be paying $.85 of each transportation dollar for train riders? Likely not, especially here.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:30:57 +0000

As the Rail Runner is a sunk cost, it is far more effective to consider and implement ways to make the system if not profitable, at least allowable to gain B.E.

Hardly a “Ghost Town,” the Rail Runner is a viable concept facing as all things currently are, cost effectiveness. The moderator makes supercilious personal avaristic comments given the fact that the hatred for the system stems from the fact that it was created by a Democratic Governor.

Interesting to note that in the early days of Albuquerque, electric trains, “light-rail” successfully transported a sparse population, effectively moving people, eliminating horses and their attended waste products; and allowed people of modest means an alternative to walking.

Many programs need tweaking to gain greater effectiveness, the Rail Runner is such a program. As gas prices continue to rise, light rail will become a far more effective means of transportation while simultaneously eliminating traffic and vehicle pollution on this increasingly traveled corridor. Given the ubiquity of the overly large, wholly inefficient S.U.V. which in S.F. and Albuquerque so often operate with only a driver, higher taxes on gasoline, and taxes on those that choose to waste resources for the sake of elevating their social-status can be used to fund upkeep and improve the efficacy of light rail here in New Mexico and elsewhere.

By: Paul White

Paul White — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:00:14 +0000

I don’t use the buses but that doesn’t mean that I cannot have a position on the Railrunner which I do pay for with my taxes. So is that all you have to say?

By: Paul Gessing

Paul Gessing — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:33:22 +0000

Comparing the urban density of Japan to NM makes perfect sense. In one (Japan), rail transit makes sense. In the other, NM, it doesn't. On the issue of bailouts, we opposed them and that includes the ones for the car industry as well. Problem is, dozens of free market groups work on those issues and it is kind of over with at this point. Undoing them is impossible. Undoing the Rail Runner is still quite possible.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:59:55 +0000

Comparing the urban density of Japan to that of N.M. is specious at best. As well, there are often times recently that there is very little room, and anyone bring a bicycle on board will have trouble placing it in the space provided.

Also you attempt to posit that there is a negation from people gathering to take the same train to the same destination. This comment is also seriously lacking in logic. Factually, as all these people are say traveling to S.F. once there there is even less pollution and less vehicles to add to traffic, with a commensurate decline in pollution, accidents, and need for parking. So, these are positive attributes as well from people that travel to S.F. for work or pleasure on board the Rail Runner.

It is of great interest to me that the Rail Runner causes such great concern to the moderator of this site, with nary ever a mention of the abundant funding of failed wall street institutions, bailout money which make the rail runner look like what it is a very minor financial issue.